alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009220EN.01003002.xml

| 12.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/30

---

Order of the President of the Court of 26 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C–213/08) (1)

1

2009/C 220/58

Language of the case: Spanish

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.

1

---
# C_2019220EN.01002902.xml

| 1.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/29

---

Order of the President of the Court of 28 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln — Germany) — QG v Germanwings GmbH

(Case C-7/19) (1)

(2019/C 220/37)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.

---
### Regular Totals (Operators)

Airport = LGA Operator = 0001(Exclude) Status Date = 01/01/2011 (Current & Future) 08/25/2011 11:23:29



### Query Parameters:

### 08/25/2011 11:23:29

Carrier 

### Regular Totals (Operators) Excludes FAA Held Slots Held less than 5 days are Excluded PF7 Status Date = 01/01/2011 (Current & Future)

LGA
89 AAL AMERICAN AIRLINES 41 ACA AIR CANADA 2 ASH MESA AIRLINES 106 AWI AIR WISCONSIN AIRLINES CORPORATION 60 CHQ CHAUTAUQUA 22 COA CONTINENTAL AIRLINES 37 COM COMAIR AIRLINES 22 CPZ COMPASS AIRLINES 146 DAL DELTA AIR LINES 124 EGF AMR EAGLE HOLDING COPR. (FORMERLY 9 FFT FRONTIER AIRLINES 6 FLG PINNACLE AIRLINES (dba NORTHWEST 17 JBU JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORP. 12 JIA JETSTREAM INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES 6 JZA AIR CANADA JAZZ 22 NKS SPIRIT AIRLINES 151 PDT PIEDMONT AIRLINES, INC. (FORMERLY 16 RPA REPUBLIC AIRLINES 16 SWA SOUTHWEST AIRLINES 58 TCF SHUTTLE AMERICA 37 TRS AIRTRAN AIRWAYS (new 3ltr eff 03/22/03) 47 UAL UNITED AIRLINES 84 USA US AIRWAYS

Page 2
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 115 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S5731]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                     EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEE

  The following executive reports of nominations were submitted:

       By Mr. ROCKEFELLER for the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation.
       * National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
     nomination of Gerd F. Glang, to be Rear Admiral (lower half).
       * National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
     nomination of Michael S. Devany, to be Rear Admiral.
       * National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
     nomination of David A. Score, to be Rear Admiral (lower 
     half).
       * William P. Doyle, of Pennsylvania, to be a Federal 
     Maritime Commissioner for the term expiring June 30, 2013.
       * Michael Peter Huerta, of the District of Columbia, to be 
     Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration for the 
     term of five years.
       * Patricia K. Falcone, of California, to be an Associate 
     Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

  *Nomination was reported with recommendation that it be confirmed 
subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear 
and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 115 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5737-S5738]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                         SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS

                                 ______
                                 

  SENATE RESOLUTION 534--CONGRATULATING THE NAVY DENTAL CORPS ON ITS 
                           100TH ANNIVERSARY

  Mr. MANCHIN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
the Committee on Armed Services:

[[Page S5738]]

                              S. Res. 534

       Whereas on August 22, 1912, Congress passed an Act 
     recognizing Navy dentistry as a distinct branch among naval 
     medical professions;
       Whereas throughout history, the Navy Dental Corps has 
     supported the Navy by sustaining sailor and marine readiness 
     and providing routine and emergency dental care, ashore and 
     afloat, in peace and in war;
       Whereas the Navy Dental Corps works continuously to improve 
     the health of sailors, marines, and their families by 
     supporting individual and community prevention initiatives, 
     good oral hygiene practices, and treatment;
       Whereas the Navy Dental Corps endeavors to improve oral 
     health worldwide by participating in the spectrum of military 
     combat, peacekeeping, and humanitarian operations and 
     exercises;
       Whereas the Navy Dental Corps, in collaboration with 
     national and international dental organizations, promotes 
     dental professionalism and quality of care;
       Whereas the Navy Dental Corps supports the mission of the 
     Federal dental research program and endorses improved dental 
     technologies and therapies through research and adherence to 
     sound scientific principles; and
       Whereas the Navy Dental Corps recognizes the importance of 
     continuing professional dental education, requiring and 
     supporting specialty dental education and postgraduate 
     residencies and fellowships for its members: Now, therefore, 
     be it
       Resolved, That the Senate--
       (1) congratulates the Navy Dental Corps on its 100th 
     anniversary;
       (2) commends the Navy Dental Corps for working to sustain 
     the dental readiness and the oral health of a superb fighting 
     force; and
       (3) recognizes the thousands of dentists who have served in 
     the Navy Dental Corps over the last 100 years, providing 
     dental care to millions of members of the Armed Forces and 
     their families.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2009220EN.01001602.xml

| 12.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/16

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Leche Celta, SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Celia SA

(Case C-300/08 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Mixed word and figurative trade mark, Celia - Relative grounds for refusal of registration - Similarity of the mark for which registration is sought with an earlier mark - Mark concerning identical goods - Likelihood of confusion - Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

2009/C 220/28

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Leche Celta, SL (represented by: J. Calderón Chavero, abogado)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent), Celia SA (represented by: D. Masson and F. de Castelnau, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 23 April 2008 in Case T-35/07 Leche Celta v OHIM, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action brought by the appellant against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 December 2006 concerning opposition proceedings between Leche Celta SL and Celia SA — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) — Relative grounds for refusal of registration of a trade mark — Likelihood of confusion linked to an application for registration of a trade mark similar to an earlier mark relating to identical goods — Visual, phonetic and conceptual comparison of the signs

Leche Celta

OHIM

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Leche Celta SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Leche Celta SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223 of 30.8.2008.

1

---
#### State v. Nguyen

18002

12/12/94

Affirmed
# C_2023007EN.01000301.xml

| 9.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 November 2022 — Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe v Ireland

(Joined Cases C-885/19 P and C-898/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Aid implemented by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and unlawful and ordering its recovery - Tax ruling - Advantage - Selectivity - Arm's length principle - Reference framework - National law applicable - ‘Normal’ taxation)

(2023/C 7/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe (represented by N. de Boynes, lawyer, M. Doeding, Solicitor, M. Engel, Rechtsanwalt, F. Hoseinian, advokat, G. Maisto, A. Massimiano, avvocati, J. Rodríguez, abogado, M. Severi, avvocato, and A. Thomson, Solicitor), Ireland (represented by M. Browne, A. Joyce and J. Quaney, acting as Agents, and by B. Doherty, Barrister-at-Law, P. Gallagher, Senior Counsel, and S. Kingston, Senior Counsel)

Other parties to the proceedings: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by A. Germeaux and T. Uri, acting as Agents, and by J. Bracker, A. Steichen and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers), European Commission (represented by P.-J. Loewenthal and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Joins Cases C-885/19 P and C-898/19 P for the purposes of the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Joins Cases C-885/19 P and C-898/19 P for the purposes of the judgment;

| 2. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 September 2019, Luxembourg and Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe v Commission (T-755/15 and T-759/15, EU:T:2019:670); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 September 2019, Luxembourg and Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe v Commission (T-755/15 and T-759/15, EU:T:2019:670);

| 3. | Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2326 of 21 October 2015 on State aid SA.38375 (2014/C ex 2014/NN) which Luxembourg granted to Fiat; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2326 of 21 October 2015 on State aid SA.38375 (2014/C ex 2014/NN) which Luxembourg granted to Fiat;

| 4. | Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the appeal in Case C-885/19 P; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the appeal in Case C-885/19 P;

| 5. | Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs in Case C-885/19 P; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs in Case C-885/19 P;

| 6. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the appeal in Case C-898/19 P; |
| --- | --- |

6.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the appeal in Case C-898/19 P;

| 7. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.

---
# **Annex 3. Work Programme for the WOAH Biological Standards Commission**

______________

__________

Report of the Meeting of the Biological Standards Commission / February 2024	28
# C_2009141EN.01001702.xml

| 20.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 April 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof, Germany) — Hauptzollamt Bremen v J.E. Tyson Parketthandel GmbH hanse j.

(Case C-134/08) (1)

1

(Regulation (EC) No 2193/2003 - Additional customs duties on imports of certain products originating in the United States of America - Temporal scope - Article 4(2) - Products exported after the entry into force of that regulation for which it can be demonstrated that they were already on their way to the Community when those duties were first applied - Whether subject to duty)

2009/C 141/28

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hauptzollamt Bremen

Applicant:

Defendant: J.E. Tyson Parketthandel GmbH hanse j.

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 4(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2193/2003 of 8 December 2003 establishing additional customs duties on imports of certain products originating in the United States of America (OJ 2003 L 328, p. 3) — Application of additional customs duties to products exported from the United States of America to the Community after the entry into force of that regulation for which it can be demonstrated that they were already on their way to the Community, with no possibility of changing their destination, when those duties were first applied

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2193/2003 of 8 December 2003 establishing additional customs duties on imports of certain products originating in the United States of America must be interpreted in a manner consistent with its wording, namely that products for which it can be demonstrated that they are already on their way to the European Community on the date of entry into force of that regulation, and whose destination cannot be changed, are not to be subject to the additional duty.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.

1

---
#### Linda Downing, Appellant, v Snowbird Ski Shop, Inc., et al., Respondents.

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries based upon negligence, strict products liability and breach of warranty, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered February 6, 1990, *234as precluded her from offering evidence at trial as to certain issues with respect to which an adequate bill of particulars had not been served, unless she served an adequate bill of particulars within 20 days of the date of the order.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the defendants’ motion for a further bill of particulars or, in the alternative, for an order of preclusion, is granted only to the extent that the plaintiff is directed to furnish a further bill of particulars as to items 5, 18, 19 and 21, at least 60 days prior to the service of a note of issue, and is otherwise denied, with leave to renew after the service of the further bill of particulars, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings, including a discovery conference.

On appeal, the plaintiff implicitly acknowledges that her responses to items 5, 18, 19 and 21 of the defendants’ demand for a bill of particulars are inadequate, and she explicitly expresses her willingness "to provide a further bill of particulars [as to those items] prior to filing a note of issue”. In opposition to the defendants’ motion, the plaintiff argued, *inter alia,*that she did not have the knowledge needed to frame a proper response to several of these items. On the other hand, the defendants concede that the amended response to item 25 is adequate. Under these and all the circumstances of this case, we believe that no prejudice would be suffered by the defendants if the plaintiff were allowed to postpone serving a more detailed response to items 5, 18, 19 and 21, until after the completion of discovery *(cf, Major v General Motors Corp.,*126 AD2d 521; *Pole v Frame Chevrolet,*126 AD2d 531). We also direct that the plaintiff not be permitted to place her action on the trial calendar until at least 60 days following the service of a further bill of particulars, in order to permit the defendants, if they deem it appropriate, to make a renewed motion to preclude. The matter is remitted to the Supreme Court for a discovery conference, so that an updated discovery schedule, consistent with the foregoing, may be devised *(see,*22 NYCRR 202.12 [c]). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Sullivan and Miller, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDING JUNE 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,259,986
<SECURITIES>                                 9,971,209
<RECEIVABLES>                                   79,358
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,461,847
<PP&E>                                         146,889
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,900,389
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          540,037
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    44,279,764
<OTHER-SE>                                (32,867,521)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,900,389
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               238,199
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,889,682
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               852,121
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,458,604)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,458,604)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,458,604)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.23)


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 16, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-21248 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANDRE ESTER, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-02-CR-307-1

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appointed counsel for Andre Ester has requested leave to withdraw as counsel and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Ester has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
19430

#### Myers v. South Seas Corp.

Affirmed
(July 8, 1991)

#### Morris Abramowitz, Appellant, v Anne Rothschild et al., Respondents.

— In an action to recover damages for conversion and to impose a constructive trust upon certain bank accounts, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.), dated June 5, 1989, as denied that branch of his cross motion which was for leave to enter a default judgment upon the defendants’ default in complying with the terms of a stipulation of settlement.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We find that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in enforcing the terms of the stipulation as though no default had occurred. The defense counsel’s default, if any, in complying with the terms of the stipulation of settlement on behalf of his clients was based upon a good-faith interpretation of its terms. Thus, the default, if any, in complying with the terms of the stipulation may not be deemed to constitute an intentional or willful default. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Unify Corporation (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October
31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Steven D. Bonham, Chief Financial Officer of the
Registrant, do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my
knowledge:

(1) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

(2) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



|Dated: November
      21, 2008 | /s/ STEVEN D. BONHAM         
|------------------------------ | -----------------------------
|                               | Steven D.
      Bonham       
|                               | Chief Financial
      Officer

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906,
has been provided to Unify Corporation and will be retained by Unify Corporation
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

---